From: News.Scotsman.Com DOCTORS have rejected calls for UK children to be fully immunised before they are allowed to start school.

The British Medical Association conference in Brighton heard that cases of measles had increased since uptake of the measles mumps and rubella jab (MMR) had fallen.

But doctors decided forcing parents to have their children vaccinated before starting school was not ethical or practical.

Dr Surendra Kumar, from the BMA's GPs committee, said measles had almost been eradicated until the publication of research, now discredited, linking the MMR vaccine to autism. He added: "As a result we have now started seeing children suffering and dying from measles.

"Let us send a clear message, that in a country like the UK we will not let our children suffer and we will not let our children be a source of risk of infection to others... we should not allow them to start schooling before they have been immunised."

Other doctors expressed concern about passing the motion.

Dr Hamish Meldrum, chairman of the BMA, said: "I want to make clear that we support immunisation but we are not in support of this means of compulsion for a whole lot of practical and ethical reasons. If it were ever to happen here we would have numerous opt-outs and it would be highly problematic."

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

"But doctors decided forcing parents to have their children vaccinated before starting school was not ethical or practical."

I wish that doctors in the U.S. were as well-informed on the subject of vaccine safety as those in the U.K. Personally, I strongly believe that doctors worldwide need to decide that forcing parents to have their children vaccinated is unethical. Mandatory jabs of any kind should be outlawed, worldwide.

Access to the public school system is very much a checkpoint by pharma-influenced government to assure compliance with vaccination schedules.

We have already lost many of our healthcare freedoms in this country. Unless we wake up soon, we will find that we live in a police state. What about our God-given unenumerated rights under the Ninth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution? What about our right to Equal Protection and Equal treatment under Law, under the Fifth, Ninth, and Fourteenth Amendments?

"Overcoming the Devastation of Legal Abuse Syndrome," is a book by Karin Huffer, MS, MFT which I have found inspiring. It tells the stories of people who fought back when they received bad treatment in the courts. As in Dr. Wakefield's case, sometimes a thing is just so wrong, you have to fight it, even at great personal cost.

Thank you, Martin Walker, and all of you who focus on that "widest river," as Martin says: "to expose the broader criminal connivence, the trickery, lies and distortions used by the GMC, the government and GSK to make disappear over a thousand vaccine damaged children to which Dr Wakefield began to give witness." When will these people be brought to account?

(My comment to the Scotsman also was lost in the ether. I'll try again.)

Dr Kumar states WE WILL NOT LET CHILDREN SUFFER so what does he think my child is doing Autism with a bowel condition , safety trials for this vaccine were minimal i have been unfortunate in watching my son walk along the living room floor with a bulging nappy and incapable of controlling his bowel movements , i have seen him try to relieve his pain by leaning over a chair , i saw him lose his speech and eye contact and i saw him regress shares in GSK has he an amazing conflict of interest , and 12 years later my son is still on medication because he cant go to the toilet without it Dr Wakefield is our loss and most definatly your gain .

I can't give a really long detailed reply. I have to run, but in essence, this is my view of the situation... I empathize with your sense of frustration. Truth and Justice by all the laws of nature and of God should rule the day. Unfortunately, they do not under the current regime of government-corporate-medical collusion. No doubt the injustices suffered by Wakefield et. al. serve some diabolical international eugenic agenda. Exposure, while necessary for the enlightenment of the ignorant, is insufficient to produce a solution. Research into the adverse effects of drugs, vaccines, surgeries, therapies, and medical devices and the associated population statistics of mortality and morbidity of those medical interventions is critical to arguments we make on behalf of autistic individuals and particularly with regard to the vaccine-autism connection. Solid research needs to be done, not only in the UK but also here in the US, with past studies, VAERS data and anything else that may be available - or that we make available. I realize this is an inadequate response. You are expressing frustration at a deeply moral betrayal by those who should be dedicated to Truth. I believe the genuine solution lies in returning research and study of the medical arts to it's original home - the church- or at least the regulation and oversight of medicine. Government and corporations should have no role whatsoever in the regulation and governance of medicine, nor in the production of mortality and morbidity statistics. If money and power agendas can be sucked out of medicine then maybe the Andrew Wakefields will have a shot at redemption.

A very interesting contribution Cheryl Baines. Let me answer one part of your question and then leave you to reflect on the sense of the rest of it. The information about Dr Kumar's shareholding in GlaxoSmith Kline the vaccine manufacturers was in my essay. 'An Interest in conflict', despite having considerable public exposure no one has questioned the facts in this essay. This is probably because the information about Dr Kumar's shareholdings were declared by him while sitting on other committee. Apparently the GMC didn't work as hard as I did in tracing his declared conflicts of interests, and then when faced with them dodged the issue completely.

I'm sorry that you find this issue confusing. This is often the case with issues involving pharmaceutical companies and corporate interests, in fact part of the policy of such organisations is to spread confusion.

I am also sorry that I can't answer your final question,'What has this to do with anything a reasonably well-educated person would want to be concerned with'. I keep getting stuck on an understanding of the meaning and relevance of the phrase 'a reasonably well-educated person'.

Dear Mary: I am sure that it is possible to get the correct figures from somewhere. But for the moment, I think that we might be wandering slightly off the point. We don't have to be concerned about the majority of Britain's doctors voting for compulsory vaccination, because the majority clearly didn't believe Kumar and voted him down, choosing not to propose compulsory MMR vaccination while threatening the nations parents with withdrawing education for their children.

What is exercising me at the moment is the fact that when, during the Fitness to Practice Hearing held against Dr Wakefield, professor Murch and Professor Walker-Smith, I publicly accused Dr Kumar sitting as the Chair of the Panel (the Jury) of having shares in GlaxoSmithKline and therefore a serious vested interest in the outcome of the hearing which rested on the safety of MMR, he and the GMC completely denied any conflict of interest or any breach of the GMC statement covering conflict of interest.

Kumar's latest propaganda outburst at the BMA conference, shows clearly that he has been committed to the position of the government, GSK and the GMC prosecution, that he was always a shoo-in, committed to a guilty verdict against Dr Wakefield.

Somehow, we - everyone concerned with this matter - have to expose the appalling underhand, slippery and dishonest trickery that has been practiced in the GMC case against Dr Wakefield.

Somehow we have to scrape away the veneer of respectability that the GMC, some witnesses, the prosecution legal team and the media lent to these dishonest and parasitic proceedings. We have to return a semblance of truth and honour to the MMR vaccine argument and what has become the corporate profession of medicine in Britain.

While refuting the spurious details of Kumar's speech at the BMA conference will take us in the right direction, perhaps the widest river we have to cross is to expose the broader criminal connivence, the trickery, lies and distortions used by the GMC, the government and GSK to make dissappear over a thousand vaccine damaged children to which Dr Wakefield began to give witness.

I was astounded to read about this suggestion – especially coming from someone who appears to have a clear conflict of interest. Thank goodness for the good sense of the doctors rejecting this idea. Long may they continue to reject such a notion. One has just to look at the experience in USA of mandatory vaccination, and the lengths to which families must go to avoid vaccines when they fear an adverse reaction. Freedom of choice is this country at least, is something we must fight hard to maintain – especially when there are already so many unanswered questions over the efficacy, safety, and overuse of frequently inadequately tested vaccines. Yes, in UK two children with measles have died since 2006 – but only because they have had other very serious underlying conditions. The last reported child death in UK from acute measles was in 1992.

“Medical literature supports the view that MMR can occasionally kill. Four years ago this paper revealed that at least 26 families had claimed their children died following the triple vaccine. In some cases the Government has awarded parents up to £100,000 under its 1979 vaccine damage Payment Act.”

Your comment is right on target. As with so many of the vaccine industrialists, e.g. Paul Offit, Kumar’s credibility is less than zero. His interest appears to be conflicted. He is not acting in the public’s best interest. “Who is asserting that measles mortality and morbidity have increased post Wakefield research?” Show us the data. Who is compiling the data? If there is any COI, the assertion may be disregarded as pharma-sponsored bilge.

IF vaccines actually worked, the fully vaccinated public should have nothing to fear from the unvaccinated. Perhaps, the much greater concern should be: are ANY vaccines safe? An article titled “Are Some Cases of Autism Actually Subclinical, Congenital Attenuated Rubella Syndrome?” by E.H. Granai on February 9, 2004.

I really am at a loss as to what this is about, and where this Martin Walker is coming from.

If Dr Kumar thinks that children should be vaccinated as a condition of school entry, then that is a perfectly valid opinion, and is state law throughout most of the USA.

As for the claim that he has shares in Glaxosmithkline, please could you show us the evidence for this? My guess is that this is simply a supposition that somebody has made, and is then repeated as if it is true.

I cannot see what this has to do with our children, or with autism, or with anything a reasonably well-educated person would want to be concerned with.

Dear Mary Podlesak: These are words from Dr Kumar Speaking at the British Medical Association conference which has taken place over the last couple of days, they are not referenced, nor are they supported by any evidence and there is absolutely no reason to believe them. They are words straight from the mouth of a man who has held shares in Glaxo Smith Kline the MMR vaccine manufacturer, while at the same time Chairing the jury in a three years GMC case about the safety of MMR.

I feel very encouraged as I have done in the past by the analysis and understanding shown by US participants in Age of Autism. Despite along and distinguished record in the social sciences, many British people appear not to fully comprehend the meaning or the consequence of conflict of interest, an issue that is becoming more and more important as corporatism takes the place of democracy.

Revisiting the occasion when I was chastised by the Legal Advisor to the Panel in the hearing, is a painful memory for me, especially because the three defence counsel, their juniors and solicitors, all agreed with the Legal Advisor that there was no issue. What is more they all agreed with the Legal Assesor's 'mistaken' view that Dr Kumar had actually stated any conflicts of interest before the hearing, as and when they cropped up in the evidence. This was not the case and certainly in relation to Kumar's share-holding in the vaccine manufacturers GSK was completely wrong.

I have no idea why the defence benches agreed to remain completely silent on this matter, in doing so they isolated and embarrassed me and showed only contempt for the parents who I was representing. By this time Dr Wakefield had returned to America and was not present at the hearing, had he been perhaps he might have spoken to his counsel.

At the heart of Kumar's insidious and disgraceful behaviour is what Internet Power draws our attention to; 'the person issuing this command for mandatory immunization will personally profit from it'. But perhaps more consequentially the person who made the final judgement in the Wakefield Fitness to Practice Hearing stood to gain from Wakefield's research on safety being dismissed.

My report of the hearing on this day when I was told-off by the Legal Advisor, can be found on the CryShame site, at:http://cryshame.com it can be read by clicking on the GMC reports 2008 on the right of the screen and then going to article 12 'A brief stop-over in another reality, 3rd - 10th November'

It really does need some strong resolve on the part of the parents and the defendants to bring this important issue to the fore-front
again.

Ah, excuse me, but I have a question - Who is asserting that measles mortality and morbidity have increased post Wakefield research? Is it Kumar only? Are these official GMC statistics? Are any independent statisticians without financial ties to the government or pharmaceutical industry confirming such data? If not, then where are the degrees of separation between those who would gather measles incidence data, which every statistician admits could be subject to bias, and those who would financially benefit from universal MMR vaccination?

Cry Shame members should start e-mail chains in the UK which disclose Surendra Kumar's shareholdings in GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the MMR. Brits need to know that the person issuing this command for mandatory immunization will personally profit from it. The e-mail could also link to where they can purchase (online) Callous Disregard, banned from stores in the UK.

"We will not let our children suffer" and all I conjure up are pictures of those sick children in the UK desperately needing help
for their gut pain and not getting it.
Bravo for those doctors that refuse forced vaccination. Maurine

"Let us send a clear message, that in a country like the UK we will not let our children suffer and we will not let our children be a source of risk of infection to others... we should not allow them to start schooling before they have been immunised."

Surely, the UK of all countries .. remembers the Nuremberg Trial .. which "sent a clear message" to the entire world that .. PEOPLE .. NOT GOVERNMENTS .. have the right of INFORMED CONSENT.

When Dr. Kumar says "we" .. he means the GOVERNMENT .. not the PEOPLE.

http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/health/Doctors-reject-calls-for-enforced.6396439.jp
Sorry Martin!! I'm a regular Scotsman blogger but this time my comment went straight into the ether!! I suspect this may have had something to do with my mentioning Wakefield and the Urabe Mumps MMR component scandal 1988-2002!! Still, there are several other good comments there so have a go everyone-just DON'T mention Wakefield!!

I was staggered when I read this on the front page of Age of Autism this morning:

Dr Surendra Kumar, from the BMA's GPs committee, said measles had almost been eradicated until the publication of research, now discredited, linking the MMR vaccine to autism. He added: "As a result we have now started seeing children suffering and dying from measles. Let us send a clear message, that in a country like the UK we will not let our children suffer and we will not let our children be a source of risk of infection to others... we should not allow them to start schooling before they have been immunised."

Absolutely staggering! With the GMC Fitness to Practice Hearing against Dr Wakefield and others still warm in its grave, here we have the CHAIR OF THE JURY from this Hearing, wretchedly crying out for compulsory mass vaccination and staking his word on the safety of a vaccination, the chief critic of which he has just dispatched to medical oblivion.

At the time of pronouncing the 'findings on fact' against these doctors, Kumar began by saying that the findings, and indeed the hearing had nothing to do with MMR vaccination.

This would have been a perfectly reasonable statement, had it not been for the fact that half way through the hearing I had accused Kumar, on the basis of indisputable research, of holding shares in GlaxoSmithKline, the vaccine's manufacturer, and therefore having a serious conflict of interest.

The reaction to my accusation was bizarre. I was rounded upon by the Legal Advisor - a judge in real life - to the hearing, accused me of 'contempt of court' with the proviso that this would be the case were they a proper court! (LOL). In public and before the whole 25 person tribunal - I was the only public person present on that day - I was told-off like a child and my complaint was quickly dismissed, not on the grounds that Kumar did not have the shares or an intimate connection with GSK - he refused to answer this accusation - but with the sad and pathetic story that Kumar had prior to sitting abided by the GMC conflict of interest policy - a policy which the GMC later admitted in correspondence they did not have.

Now, it appears clear to me that if Kumar is committedly in favour of no education without compulsory vaccination and therefore completely convinced of the vaccines safety he was utterly and intractably compromised as the Chairman of these three year proceedings. The fact that he feels safe to vociferously 'come out' now, screeching about compulsory vaccination, shows how safely protected this man feels he is.

My essay An Interest in Conflict, can be obtained from my web site http://www.slingshotpublications.com, at £3, by clicking on the drop down list of ESSAYS. if it is not up today, you can still order it through the normal order form and receive it today or tomorrow.

It seems to me that in his arrogance Kumar has made a terrible mistake and that he has compromised the GMC and everyone associated with the hearing. If we could begin a mass comment campaign to The Scotsman, to AOA and the GMC, it is possible, even at this late stage that we can ridicule Kumar's refutation of his having any conflict of interest, as CHAIRMAN OF THE JURY in these proceedings and at least draw the attention of the media to this matter.

Dr Surendra Kumar states:-
"Let us send a clear message, that in a country like the UK we will not let our children suffer and we will not let our children be a source of risk of infection to others... we should not allow them to start schooling before they have been immunised."
The solution is EASY Dr Kumar. Simply take Dr Wakefield's good advice and provide the option of single vaccinations on the NHS for parents unwilling to subject their children to the MMR. After all, single vaccinations for Measles and Rubella were the 'norm' in the UK long before the MMR was introduced.
I am so glad that our UK doctors are at last beginning to question the authoritarian dictats of the GMC and DOH.

It wouldn't work, because everybody would know about the option of exemptions. Anybody who is not currently vaccinated by choice would just fill out the exemption form. It would make no difference.

Surprisingly, there are still many parents in the U.S. who vaccinate when they don't want to because they are unaware of the availability of exemptions for school. That wouldn't be the case in the U.K. just because most news reports would mention the exemption option, and the information would also spread by word of mouth.